> That is assuming the raw materials cost $0 and there is no value to assuming the risk of the sales price.
Yes, it was a very simplified model.
> If you pay the worker $800, but it turns out the market only values the widget at $500, does the worker return the difference? Usually not.
In that case the worker is the one being unethical.
> If you are not providing any value, why is the worker not just cutting you out of the deal and making and selling widgets directly?
Each person involved in making the product and getting it to the customer: marketing, distribution etc. would need to get paid their share of their contribution.
I guess my example was too simplistic, but that's simplest way I could make the point.
> > If you pay the worker $800, but it turns out the market only values the widget at $500, does the worker return the difference? Usually not.
> In that case the worker is the one being unethical.
I don't consider the worker any more unethical than the owner is in your example. Two adults have access to the same information and come to an agreement. If they both consent to the transaction without coercion, there can be nothing unethical about it.
Owner assumes risk for possible but not guaranteed payoff.
Worker gives up potential upside, but gets guaranteed payoff.
Worker has the option to reject the deal and assume the risk themselves if they like, or assume part of the risk by providing some capital of their own or working contingent on future payoff (a la, lower base pay + stock options like startups do).
The value of things in the future cannot be known. Reducing that uncertainty has value. Rewards are distributed in proportion to the risk that is assumed.
Yes, it was a very simplified model.
> If you pay the worker $800, but it turns out the market only values the widget at $500, does the worker return the difference? Usually not.
In that case the worker is the one being unethical.
> If you are not providing any value, why is the worker not just cutting you out of the deal and making and selling widgets directly?
Each person involved in making the product and getting it to the customer: marketing, distribution etc. would need to get paid their share of their contribution.
I guess my example was too simplistic, but that's simplest way I could make the point.